Posted: 15 Nov 2006 02:06
ArjunKarn wrote:
Thanks, ArjunKarn, for the link to the incredibly wise panchatantras. (It has been a while since I read that particular story).
I think there is a "realist" explanation for not supporting ideologies incompatible with democracy in a multipolar world. There is an extensive case analysis that was partially outlined in the "FU of nukes" thread that one can do to come to this conclusion, assuming an eventual goal of a "nukes only in the hands of coutries that have the natural ability to create and support their own nuclear program" (this is the same as a "nuke free" world if we assume that democracies will always be responsible with nukes) -- where the tendency of states that create conflagrations to push their state's interests is self-defeating in the long run.
Anyway, the jist of that argument is that if we model the nation states in the world into different categories (they were briefly outlined in the FU of nukes thread), then the creation of a jihadi force in Afghanistan AND Pakistan basically increases the "entropy" of that state to a very high value (think of a "peaceful state" as one with low entropy -- where low entropy implies increased stability).
Now think of the relationships between countries in the world, as either "blue" arcs (a relationship directed towards lowering entropy) or "red" arc s (a relationship directed towards increasing entropy), where a "red" arc has negative weight and a "blue" arc has positive weight. The stronger a hostile relationship is, the more negative the value is for the "red" arc. The stronger a "blue" relationship is, the more positive value there is for the "blue" arc. Clearly, a world where all arcs between all countries is blue is the ideal world peace situation.
Of course, countries like USA, China and India have both "blue" and "red" arcs connecting them (in both directions) since they both compete and cooperate simultaneously.
"Peace" is a stable equilibrium because all the arcs are positive and unless "red" arcs are created deliberately (policies of the P-5 to create wars that increase the entropy in different countries), blue arcs will tend to bring increasing stability over time....and, unfortunately, also end up with each state having citizens that do not understand war and its necessity. So the bluer a world gets, the higher its tendency to be vulnerable to very destabilizing set of "red" relationships. This is one main reason why states with Nuclear weapons must not ever give them up. They are the "stabilizing" forces (especially if they are democracies) that can handle both "red" and "blue" relations effectively. Countries like China, where the average citizen has no voice in controlling the blueness or redness of china's relationships with other countries, are inherently unstable because they do not have deep relations at a grassroot level with other "power poles" with which China has both blue and red arcs.
Of course, the trick for countries like USA and India is to have a healthy balance of "blue" and "red" between each other, and the really cool thing here is that the nature of "red" can be changed, if the countries wage economic war on each other instead of real war.....but the problem here is other secondary effects where the "red" arc eventually becomes stronger and stronger, if the countries do not play by the rules and start hurting the civilians in the democracy they are competing with.
At this point, I am not sure I am making much sense (to anyone other than myself ), so I will finish writing this up better and post the whole analysis.
Of course, goes without saying that the "cold war" was a HUGE red arrow going both ways between USSR and USA, and the controlled demolition of USSR was a masterpiece solution in the end. Ended up reducing the intensity of the red arcs and strengthening of the blue arcs. (The wisdom of the question of strengthening the red arcs to insane levels during the cold war is debatable and may or may not have been "inevitable"...one would have to do a bunch of number crunching to game out various scenarios)
(C) Copyright Bharat-Rakshak 2006.
Obviously the planners never read even the basic panchatantra stories!! You never bring outsiders to solve your own issues particularly when you don't know what the outsiders would do once they have done your job.
Thanks, ArjunKarn, for the link to the incredibly wise panchatantras. (It has been a while since I read that particular story). I think there is a "realist" explanation for not supporting ideologies incompatible with democracy in a multipolar world. There is an extensive case analysis that was partially outlined in the "FU of nukes" thread that one can do to come to this conclusion, assuming an eventual goal of a "nukes only in the hands of coutries that have the natural ability to create and support their own nuclear program" (this is the same as a "nuke free" world if we assume that democracies will always be responsible with nukes) -- where the tendency of states that create conflagrations to push their state's interests is self-defeating in the long run.
Anyway, the jist of that argument is that if we model the nation states in the world into different categories (they were briefly outlined in the FU of nukes thread), then the creation of a jihadi force in Afghanistan AND Pakistan basically increases the "entropy" of that state to a very high value (think of a "peaceful state" as one with low entropy -- where low entropy implies increased stability).
Now think of the relationships between countries in the world, as either "blue" arcs (a relationship directed towards lowering entropy) or "red" arc s (a relationship directed towards increasing entropy), where a "red" arc has negative weight and a "blue" arc has positive weight. The stronger a hostile relationship is, the more negative the value is for the "red" arc. The stronger a "blue" relationship is, the more positive value there is for the "blue" arc. Clearly, a world where all arcs between all countries is blue is the ideal world peace situation.
Of course, countries like USA, China and India have both "blue" and "red" arcs connecting them (in both directions) since they both compete and cooperate simultaneously.
"Peace" is a stable equilibrium because all the arcs are positive and unless "red" arcs are created deliberately (policies of the P-5 to create wars that increase the entropy in different countries), blue arcs will tend to bring increasing stability over time....and, unfortunately, also end up with each state having citizens that do not understand war and its necessity. So the bluer a world gets, the higher its tendency to be vulnerable to very destabilizing set of "red" relationships. This is one main reason why states with Nuclear weapons must not ever give them up. They are the "stabilizing" forces (especially if they are democracies) that can handle both "red" and "blue" relations effectively. Countries like China, where the average citizen has no voice in controlling the blueness or redness of china's relationships with other countries, are inherently unstable because they do not have deep relations at a grassroot level with other "power poles" with which China has both blue and red arcs.
Of course, the trick for countries like USA and India is to have a healthy balance of "blue" and "red" between each other, and the really cool thing here is that the nature of "red" can be changed, if the countries wage economic war on each other instead of real war.....but the problem here is other secondary effects where the "red" arc eventually becomes stronger and stronger, if the countries do not play by the rules and start hurting the civilians in the democracy they are competing with.
At this point, I am not sure I am making much sense (to anyone other than myself
), so I will finish writing this up better and post the whole analysis.Of course, goes without saying that the "cold war" was a HUGE red arrow going both ways between USSR and USA, and the controlled demolition of USSR was a masterpiece solution in the end. Ended up reducing the intensity of the red arcs and strengthening of the blue arcs. (The wisdom of the question of strengthening the red arcs to insane levels during the cold war is debatable and may or may not have been "inevitable"...one would have to do a bunch of number crunching to game out various scenarios)
(C) Copyright Bharat-Rakshak 2006.
, he said they need to put the past behind and work for a "new future" and expressed confidence that this will be achieved overcoming all hurdles.
